In 1709 (or was it 1710?) the Statute of Anne created the first purpose-built copyright law. This blog, founded just 300 short and unextended years later, is dedicated to all things copyright, warts and all. To contact the 1709 Blog, email Eleonora at eleonorarosati[at]gmail.com

Wednesday, 23 November 2016

Richard Prince May Offer the SDNY Another Chance to Define Transformative Use of a Work

Richard Prince was sued on November 16 by yet another
photographer over the use of a photograph in his NewPortraits series. The
case is Eric McNatt v. Richard Prince,
1:16-cv-08896, Southern District of New York (SDNY).

Readers of this blog may remember that Richard Prince used
various photographs protected by copyright to create his New Portraits exhibition. He had commented, cryptically, or
nonsensically, whatever your mood is, below several photographs which had been
uploaded by others on Instagram. He then printed the results on canvas to
create a series of works, New Portraits,
which has been shown in New York. Prince has been sued by some of the copyright
holders of the original works (see here
and here).
One of these cases, Donald Graham v.
Prince, is still pending at the SDNY.

This time, it is photographer Eric McNatt who is suing
Richard Prince and the Blum and Poe Gallery for copyright infringement. The
complaint alleges that Richard Prince reproduced a photograph taken
by Plaintiff of Kim Gordon, a founding member and bassist of Sonic Youth, by
downloading it from the web, where it had been published with a copyright
notice, and uploading it on his own Instagram account. Prince has since deleted
this account. Prince then wrote three lines of comments under the photograph: “Portrait of Kim Gordon,” then “Kool Thang You
Make My Heart Sang You Make Everythang Groovy” and finally added a string of
music-related emojis.

Will TCA Television Corp. v. McCollum
Influence the Outcome of this Case?

The Donald Graham v.
Richard Prince case is still pending at the SDNY. On November 4, attorneys
for Donald Graham sent a letter to Judge
Sidney Stein from the SDNY, who is presiding over the case, to alert him of the
recent TCA Television Corp. v. McCollum
Second Circuit case (2nd Circ. Oct. 11, 2016), which, in their view,
“undermines Defendants ‘motion to dismiss
on fair use grounds.”

In TCA Television Corp.,
the author of the play Hand of God had
been sued by the heirs of Abbot and Costello over the use of their famous “Who’s on First” routine. The main
character of the play recites the routine verbatim
in the play with his trusty (but evil) sock puppet acting as sidekick. Judge
Daniels from the SDNY had dismissed
the copyright infringement suit, finding the use of the routine in the play to
be fair use. The Second Circuit affirmed,
but on alternative grounds: the use of the routine was not transformative
enough to be fair use, but the heirs had not proven that they owned the
copyright in the routine.

Attorneys for Prince sent their own letter a few days
later, where they argued that the holding in TCA Television is distinguishable from the case, that the TCA Television case is not even related
to fair use and that thus “the entire
discussion of fair use is dicta.” They also argue that the Second Circuit
did not find the use of the routine to be fair because, according to the Court,
“the extent of defendants’ taking is identically
comedic to that of the original authors, that is, to have two performers expand
on a singular joke in order to generate increasing audience laughter.”

Attorneys for Prince also argued in the letter, that, “[b]y
contrast, Prince used Graham’s photograph for a highly transformative purpose:
as a commentary on social media. This new meaning and message is apparent to
any reasonable observer who looks at the artwork. “Prince’s attorneys also
argued that “Prince’s transformative
purpose [was] to provide a commentary on social media
[and thus] required the incorporation of the entire Instagram post… to accomplish that purpose. “

Is the use of the
McNatt Photograph Transformative Enough to be Fair Use?

What is transformative use? We still do not have a “so
transformative it is fair use” test. However, the TCA Television case may influence the McNatt v. Prince case. If we consider that Prince’s purpose for
reproducing Eric McNatt’s photograph of Kim Gordon was to comment on social
media, as claimed by Prince’s attorneys in the Graham v. Prince case, then it is fair use under Cariou if Prince added something
materially new or provided a different aesthetic. The Second Circuit had found
in Cariou v. Prince that Prince’s use
of Cariou’s photographs was fair use, because he had used them to create new
works and had “employ[ed] new
aesthetics with creative and communicative results distinct from Cariou.”

Judge Daniels from the SDNY had found in TCA
Televisionthat the use of the routine was fair use, explaining that “[t]he
contrast between Jason'sseemingly
soft-spoken personality and the actual outrageousness of his inner nature,
which he expresses through the sock puppet, is, among other things, a darkly
comedic critique of the social norms governing a small town in the Bible Belt.
Thus, Defendants' use of part of the
Routine is not an attempt to usurp plaintiffs’ material in order to "avoid
the drudgery in working up something fresh." Campbell, 510 U.S. at 580,
114 S.Ct. 1164. Nor is the original performance of the [r]outine "merely
repackaged or republished." Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust, 755 F.3d
87, 97 (2d Cir.2014).”

The Second Circuit found that the use was not fair because
it had not transformed the routine's aesthetic, it had appropriated the routine
extensively, and “[n]o new dramatic purpose was served by so much
copying” and “there is nothing transformative
about using an original work in the manner it was made to be used.”

If we apply this to our case, then Prince must prove that he
used the original work in a different manner than it was made to be used. Should
we only look at the comments written by Prince to decide if the use is
transformative enough to be fair, or at the ensemble, work and comments? In
both ways, the Prince’s work could be considered fair use if proven to be a critique
on the desperate banality of social media and social media comments. But is it?

As noted by the Complaint, “Kool Thang You Make My Heart Sang You make Everythang Groovy” is “a
transliteration of lyrics to the 1960 song “Wild Thing,”written by Chip Taylor, except that the word “Kool” replaces the word
“Wild.” “Kool Thing” is the title of
Sonic Youths first major label record single.” As itself, this comment may
not be original enough to be protected by copyright yet it is more creative
than most social media comments. The emojis chosen by Prince, however, are quite
banal and so their banality may comment on banality. Pass the aspirin.

Search This Blog

Would you like to receive each post by email?

2,747 readers now receive The 1709 Blog by email circular. Why don't you join them? To subscribe, just type your email address in the box below, then click the 'Subscribe' button

email:

Folllow us on Twitter

The 1709 Blog, and some of the choice comments of its blog team on copyright topics, can now be followed on Twitter at @1709Blog. When we last looked, we had 2,047 followers so, if you sign up, you won't be alone!